Reminds me about how Turtles in Time got ported over. It's a disappointment that all these games have going is nostalgia. Would've been great to see someone actually do something with these games and change it up a bit to make it a better experience with more replay value. As much as I would like to give this a single run through, the reminder of how exited I was for Turtles in Time and I only played through it twice before never playing again just makes the $10 admission fee too high for X-men.

It was one of the only Marvel games to recognise Dazzler, so I loved it. It's Final Fight though, with all the merits and flaws of that.Far far better than the Simpsons, but not quite as good as TMNHT.

I was a fan of the arcade game and I hope that more classic side-scrolling beat em ups come to XLBA. A man can dream that the likes of Alien vs. Predator, Aliens, and The Punisher arcade games come out. I don't have the room for an arcade cabnet with free play, so this is the next best thing.

For old-school style action...why not just get Scott Pilgrim Vs the World? 4 player too, punchy action, but aparently with some extra enemy variety and different tactics for the bosses. Plus a levelling and shop system too, even if grinding a little money and strength is...well, its either required or game-breaking. Kinda depends on how skilled you are.

This game though...eh. Its a nice idea, but for anyone without the nostalgia value, seems better to skip it.

These games are designed to be played without manuals or real hint guides, so that players can pick them up on the fly. That means simple mechanics, simple fights, and a lot of repetition. You want the player to feel that they can do this, so that they'll keep pumping in quarters.

(That's how slot machines work, after all. Each loss convinces the player that they're "due" the next time around, because the "game" itself isn't getting any harder. They actually feel they're getting closer to a win, despite the obvious fallacy in that thinking.)

Non-arcade games are about building a very differently-shaped difficulty curve. Your player has unlimited opportunities to practice and refine skills, so you can demand more. Also, because they're shelling out $60 up front, rather than putting in maybe $5 in quarters, they expect more.

I have X-Men and MUA2 with Juggernaut and the extra 5-pack. I'd say get both X-Men and MUA, because my gaming mood tends to change every once in a while. That's why I still tend to break out the classics now and then, even though I love my PS3.

I loved that game when it was in the arcade, my young teenage self was a fan of comic book already and for the time, those graphics were really good... this game was a dream come true.

A few year back tho, we hooked a pc on a big screen TV and ran it 4-player on an emulator... and well, it sucks. I'm surprised Steve finished it, once the original nostalgia vibe passes (about 10 minutes for me), you end up with a very boring, very repetitive and very cheap game.

Even though it was 10 bucks, it was worth it for me to play the game I keep hearing positive things about it. I never played the arcade version in the early 90s and the first time I went to an arcade was in the late 90s.

And Magneto's cheesy lines still make laugh to this day. X-Chicken. Heh heh.

Okay you totally didn't mention something I felt was important. It's one of the only games I've found that utilizes the ps3's ability to have up to 7 players on one box (that isn't a sports game). My buddies brought over controllers and all six had a great nostalgia trip (FYI we were between ages 11-16 when the original came out)

cefm:Adjusted for inflation, the 100 quarters it would have taken to beat this game in the arcade would be worth $60.41 in today's dollars. So at $10, it's a steal.

Sadly, most of the people online actually couldn't beat the game without 100 quarters. Since using your mutant power without any charges saved up drains health, button-mashers will constantly be at 1 HP. This is why infinite continues breaks the game: you actually get more kills by going RRRRAAAAAAAA 5 times, dying to the next enemy, then hitting Start to try again.

A part of me woulden't mind playing a version of this where you would have to spend a set amount of online currency to get that feeling of the old arcade. I can see people hating that but I would have it only as an option and would honestly be the only way I can think of getting it a little closer where you would actually worry about how many continues you had left. The companies would be raking it in.

i loved this game back in the day but i really wish for that sports arcade game they had that had streetfighter like characters racing and competing in extreme olympic events like hadoken-ing the artilliary shells being fired at u or mach speed track n field. any1 know the game i'm talking about?

I'd probably get it if it was cheaper, but 10 bucks seems like a bit much. I remember the first time I played on the amazing 6 player cabinet. I would generally pick Colossus, Nightcrawler, or Wolverine.

Nowadays I'd probably pick Dazzler or Storm. I still won't take Cyclops, ever.

The biggest knock I have against the game is the unlimited continues. It takes ALL the consequence and strategy out of the game. Since you have no fear of truly "dying," whenever bosses come on, everyone just keeps throwing their special moves, dying, respawning, throwing special moves, dying, rinse and repeat.

It's too bad that a game like TMNT Arcade turned out being the exception rather than the norm. That game really got it right. 19 lives to get to the end, and it is still a challenge. If they just put a lives limit on X-Men, it would be tons of fun. As-is though it's just more evidence that freeplay isn't always funplay.

These games are designed to be played without manuals or real hint guides, so that players can pick them up on the fly. That means simple mechanics, simple fights, and a lot of repetition. You want the player to feel that they can do this, so that they'll keep pumping in quarters.

(That's how slot machines work, after all. Each loss convinces the player that they're "due" the next time around, because the "game" itself isn't getting any harder. They actually feel they're getting closer to a win, despite the obvious fallacy in that thinking.)

Non-arcade games are about building a very differently-shaped difficulty curve. Your player has unlimited opportunities to practice and refine skills, so you can demand more. Also, because they're shelling out $60 up front, rather than putting in maybe $5 in quarters, they expect more.

Slot machines work of the psychological necessity to make sense of things.

The reason gambling works is that it is entirely random. Your brain assumes it figured out the pattern but no pattern actually exists. Which is why people are rarely fulfilled with just 10 tries and must continue trying.

But yeah...basically what you said. Just wanted to follow up on it. The brain is constantly looking for patterns, convincing it that it found one is a great way to manipulate people and create superstition.

theultimateend:Slot machines work of the psychological necessity to make sense of things.

The reason gambling works is that it is entirely random. Your brain assumes it figured out the pattern but no pattern actually exists. Which is why people are rarely fulfilled with just 10 tries and must continue trying.

But yeah...basically what you said. Just wanted to follow up on it. The brain is constantly looking for patterns, convincing it that it found one is a great way to manipulate people and create superstition.

Of course. What I'm talking about here is one of the concepts that fuels the "gambler's fallacy." The fact that something is random doesn't have any effect on us directly. What it does is play upon our sense of fairness (which is a type of pattern). The game exists, you know how it works, and therefore you should be able to win.

Arcade games are, in a lot of ways, just as random. It's simply a matter of having to push more buttons or pull more levers to achieve the result. There is skill required, sure, but these skills are generally pretty simple to get the hang of... and this skill component leads us to the false belief that the process is decided entirely based on skill. So we keep popping in quarters because, "Oh, wait, I see. No, I got this, I got this." We're convinced that losing just then taught us a new skill that will keep us from losing in the same way again.

Gambler's Fallacy: "I just have to keep pulling this lever. At some point, I'm due for a win." - We impose rules of fairness on the proceedings.

Gambler's Fallacy - Arcade version: "I just have to put in another quarter. I know how to beat this now, so I'm totally going to win." - Imposing rules of fairness again.

At least SNK seems to understand keeping the old games challenging. The Neo-Geo games are tough! Now I remember how my friend and I dropped $10 on Magician Lord 20 years ago and still couldn't beat it.